A thunderingly obtuse question...

[_Kishkumen]

You all are equally blinded by your abject hatred of Mormonism and are clearly nothing but puppets of Doctor Scratch.

You are all the same person, and I'll let you guess who that is.

Cease your campaign of defamation against Daniel Peterson in this thread right away.

Your party is coming to an end very soon.

[_huckelberry]

God is the source of all being and is our ultimate concern because he is the source of our being. I have no possible choice but to seek God.My very act of desiring anything is pointed that way. However I am quit capable of making mistakes in direction. The only way I can imagine seeing when the path is wrong is by realizing when it is corrupting my inmost self , soul.

I am not really sure that I follow your answer, Huckleberry. For instance, how would you know if you were making a mistake with your beliefs in God? What if you turning away from God is actually at the behest of another, more powerful God that this God serves? Or, what if this God is a false God and Lucifer is the real God? What if Jesus is a false God and Allah is the real God? How would you know without having "faith", which basically means that you've decided ahead of time?

The only way I can imagine seeing when the path chosen is wrong is by realizing when it is corrupting my inmost self.

Perhaps you missed that because you were looking for a method prior to the first step on the path and I am clearly speaking to considerations occurring subsequently. The difficulty I have with your question is that I do not think anybody has access to the first unadulterated moment. Our process of belief and unbelief is already in process so all we can do is correct adjust reject according to results of our previous views. I realize that this means all beliefs have a tentative quality. They are potentially wrong but have not yet been so determined.

To try to clarify my intention I can add I believe reason, comparison with science, and comparison with inherited cultural wisdom and experience should all be called in to help.

[_Alfredo]

My answer is to your point, really, directly. Jesus is God, which makes the encounter of God, that of a Person, not an ideal.

I don't understand how you think this is a response. Spell it out for me.

[_Alfredo]

The only way I can imagine seeing when the path chosen is wrong is by realizing when it is corrupting my inmost self.

Does it require faith to believe this?

If you entertain the possibility that the Devil were more powerful than God, would your test for the right path matter?

Perhaps you missed that because you were looking for a method prior to the first step on the path and I am clearly speaking to considerations occurring subsequently. The difficulty I have with your question is that I do not think anybody has access to the first unadulterated moment. Our process of belief and unbelief is already in process so all we can do is correct adjust reject according to results of our previous views. I realize that this means all beliefs have a tentative quality. They are potentially wrong but have not yet been so determined.

To try to clarify my intention I can add I believe reason, comparison with science, and comparison with inherited cultural wisdom and experience should all be called in to help.

That you think no one has access to a first unadulterated moment doesn't prevent us from imagining one. What prevents you from answering the question hypothetically?

The critical point is there is no reliable way to choose between supernatural paradigms. Asking for the first act of faith in one or another is only to subvert circular reasoning and isolate the concepts to be evaluated. Regardless if faith is involved, a comparative test isn't any less circular to only accept the test defined by one paradigm and not another.

[_huckelberry]

The only way I can imagine seeing when the path chosen is wrong is by realizing when it is corrupting my inmost self.

Does it require faith to believe this?

If you entertain the possibility that the Devil were more powerful than God, would your test for the right path matter?

Does it require faith? I would hardly call it faith. Instead I would call it desire. It is part of our biological nature to desire.

I think your question about the Devil illustrates the problem of hypothetically approaching a first conceptual step of faith. Your question is hardly a first step. It require serious explanation to be coherent as a question. What is this devil? What is the God? what does it mean to say more powerful? After all most definitions of God involves being most powerful. To reverse that results in gibberish not a question. Now you may be creating the question with other definitions of God and the devil. But I do not know what those would be. . If you imagine god and the devil as two waring spirits you likely have no way of determining which is most powerful.

[_Alfredo]

Does it require faith? I would hardly call it faith. Instead I would call it desire. It is part of our biological nature to desire.

I think your question about the Devil illustrates the problem of hypothetically approaching a first conceptual step of faith. Your question is hardly a first step. It require serious explanation to be coherent as a question. What is this devil? What is the God? what does it mean to say more powerful? After all most definitions of God involves being most powerful. To reverse that results in gibberish not a question. Now you may be creating the question with other definitions of God and the devil. But I do not know what those would be. . If you imagine god and the devil as two waring spirits you likely have no way of determining which is most powerful.

The problem isn't how we define God or the Devil. The problem is that there are any number of possible definitions, with no reliable method of comparison to find which are true or false. Providing two examples only serves to show that possible explanations for our spiritual experiences can be in conflict but with no logical resolution.

It just so happens that a world in which the Devil is more powerful that "God" is very easy to define and defend as possible. It's a fun example. "God" is the Devil's trick. "God" is only mistakenly defined as more powerful and any evidence we perceive is likewise mistaken. This paradigm is entirely possible, but confirming or dis-confirming the possibility isn't the point. The point is that there is no end to the number of supernatural paradigms we can imagine as explaining religion and no way to choose between them as true or false.

But, you must disagree. Do you mean to suggest that desire is used to establish religious knowledge? That our desire is the proper test for figuring which definitions should be held as true?

[_Alfredo]

Two very relevant videos:

http://youtu.be/fZpJ7yUPwdU
http://youtu.be/Gcw1YEtTQCw

[_huckelberry]

The problem isn't how we define God or the Devil. The problem is that there are any number of possible definitions, with no reliable method of comparison to find which are true or false. Providing two examples only serves to show that possible explanations for our spiritual experiences can be in conflict but with no logical resolution.

It just so happens that a world in which the Devil is more powerful that "God" is very easy to define and defend as possible. It's a fun example. "God" is the Devil's trick. "God" is only mistakenly defined as more powerful and any evidence we perceive is likewise mistaken. This paradigm is entirely possible, but confirming or dis-confirming the possibility isn't the point. The point is that there is no end to the number of supernatural paradigms we can imagine as explaining religion and no way to choose between them as true or false.

But, you must disagree. Do you mean to suggest that desire is used to establish religious knowledge? That our desire is the proper test for figuring which definitions should be held as true?

if you decide the devil is more powerful then how do you know it is the devil that you have made this decision about?

One can desire true things or untrue. Its not a magic test.

[_Alfredo]

if you decide the devil is more powerful then how do you know it is the devil that you have made this decision about?

You don't decide that. Do I really need to repeat myself?

This paradigm is entirely possible, but confirming or dis-confirming the possibility isn't the point. The point is that there is no end to the number of supernatural paradigms we can imagine as explaining religion and no way to choose between them as true or false.

One can desire true things or untrue. Its not a magic test.

Then why did you bring it up?

[_Stormy Waters]

Two very relevant videos:

http://youtu.be/fZpJ7yUPwdU

I like this take on Pascal's wager. Also good thread.